Dr Aafia case: IHC issues contempt notice to PM, cabinet
A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Monday, hearing Siddiqui's petition, issued the notices against the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet over the government's failure to submit a report in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case.
Justice Ejaz expressed strong displeasure over the government for not submitting the required report about why the government was refusing to sign an amicus brief on Aafia case.
He noted in his written order, 'The government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government.'
The IHC office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the federal government will be respondents. The replies of all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today (July 21).
Justice Ejaz stated that ever since the demolition squad was catapulted into this High Court after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, they have seen one heresy after another hurled at the edifice of justice, maiming it repeatedly, and bringing it almost to its last breaths.
'This is yet another instance. The heresy I speak of now is besieging the dispensation of Justice by a Judge of the High Court by the device of the 'weekly roster' controlled by the office of the Chief Justice. It is both heart-rending and amusing at the same time, a blend of paradox that this High Court has become,' said the judge.
Justice Ejaz mentioned that he had passed the previous order giving the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the Additional Advocate General that inaction would leave him no choice but to proceed in contempt. The government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case.
He stated that for whatever reason, the government's case had not been taken up by the Supreme Court. The machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this Court through its roster. 'The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold Court by the High Court establishment when he is on leave,' added the judge.
He pointed out that his leave was meant to start today and the roster of judges sitting for this week therefore did not include his name. 'The leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which I had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice in this and the other eases that ordered for listing today.'
The judge also said that on Thursday or perhaps Friday, he was informed through his PS by the Office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the Chief Justice. That seemed to me a trivial matter and he asked his PS to move an application accordingly.
He further said that he was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it.
He maintained, 'Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the Motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former. The correct legal position is that the Office cannot use the shoulder of the Chief Justice in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a Judge in an ongoing case.'
Justice Ejaz stated that the motivation of a Judge to hold Court on a day on which he is 'officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold Court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. 'I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold Court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. Gone are the days when a Judge could pass an order even while playing Golf or dining with his family if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a Courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case – were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business.
He said this is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. 'To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses.'
Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case until September 1.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
8 hours ago
- Business Recorder
9th May ‘mastermind, coach' cannot escape accountability: Azma
LAHORE: Punjab Minister for Information and Culture, Azma Bokhari, has released CCTV footage of the incidents that took place on May 9, stating that all facts related to this tragic episode have now come to light. She emphasised that court verdicts in the cases related to the failed uprising of May 9 have started to come through after two years, marking a significant step toward justice. Azma Bokhari stated that the planning behind the events of May 9, including the individuals involved and the locations where these conspiracies were crafted, has been fully exposed. 'The masterminds and executors of these attacks, particularly those who incited violence and set fire to the memorials of our martyrs, are the true enemies of Pakistan,' she said, adding: 'Such individuals do not deserve any leniency.' She further said that the attacks on military installations were carried out with complete planning and coordination, and now no ambiguity remains regarding who was involved and how it happened. According to her, under the directions of the Supreme Court, all trial courts are obligated to deliver verdicts in the May 9 cases within four months. Taking a firm stance, Azma Bokhari declared that the mastermind behind May 9 and his coach cannot and will not escape accountability. She assured that the government will ensure all legal processes are completed with integrity and that the sacrifices of the martyrs will not be forgotten. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
9 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC judge defies bench on appeals transfer
Listen to article Another dispute has erupted in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq has declined to accept the order of a two-judge bench to transfer civil appeals, pending in the high court for adjudication, to the district judiciary, and refusing to transfer the appeals in his docket. The division bench, comprising Justice Azam Khan and Justice Inam Amin Minhas, had ordered the transfer of 1,594 civil appeals to the district judiciary following the Civil Courts Amendment Act 2025 that redefines the appellate jurisdiction in civil matters. Justice Ishaq termed the bench's judicial order illegal. "I come to the rather embarrassing conclusion that the decision of the Division Bench in Civil Reference no 1/2025 was coram non judice, per incuriam, and an exercise of administrative authority cloaked as a judicial decision", he said in an order. Justice Ishaq said that the division bench's order violated the Article 175 (2) of the Constitution. He wondered why it did not occur to the judges of the bench or to the bar representatives that the parties might have to pay additional fees to the lawyers for hearings of appeals in district courts. "Had the interest of the litigants genuinely mattered to the Office, to the Division Bench, and to the Bars representatives, they could easily have interpreted. IHC judge defies bench on appeals transfer the amendment prospectively", said the order passed by Justice Ishaq. The judge further said that when the legislatures made such an express command for transfer – coupled with conferral of exclusive jurisdiction then it must be followed, "but when it stops short and simply changes the jurisdictional forum without specifying exclusive jurisdiction to a forum, then it follows inexorably from the presumption that the Legislature is presumed to be aware of all the laws that the Legislature intended to leave it to the Courts to apply the precedent law to decide the fate of pending cases, and the preponderance of precedent", the order said. "I say with a heavy heart that the Office, my learned brothers, as well as the Bars representatives, have not cared a bit about the plight of the litigants before the High Court, the utter inconvenience they will suffer by a de novo hearing of their appeals by the District Courts, the additional financial burden they will have to bear by paying fresh fees to the counsels for cases that have been, in most part, substantially argued before the High Court and, above all, they did not care in the least about the much higher pendency before the Judges in the District Courts, who also conduct civil and criminal trials, and with unrivalled nonchalance preferred to off-load the High Court's burden on them," it continued. "I feel sympathy for the Judges in the District Courts, who in all likelihood would wonder why could the eleven Judges of the High Court not girdle their belts to decide 1,594 appeals instead of offloading them to an almost equal number of Additional District Judges who are much, much more burdened with work then we are". The court also ordered the office to circulate the copy of this order to all the judges for their information and, should any of them agree with me, then for them to consider saying so in a written communique to the Chief Justice". "Further, the Office will also send a copy of this order to the Islamabad Bar Council and to the two Bar Associations for circulation amongst the members of the Bars", the order said. The hearing of case was adjourned until last week of September.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Chinese woman's khula takes legal twist
A case filed by a Chinese woman seeking divorce (khula) from her Pakistani husband has taken a new twist after conflicting decisions from the high court and a lower court, raising questions over whether she can legally obtain khula in Pakistan, who will get custody of their 12-year-old daughter, and whether the woman will be granted a visa to stay in the country until the matter is resolved. According to court documents, Chinese national Mir Guli married Shah Zeb, a trader from Charsadda, in China in 2011. A year later, she gave birth to a daughter, Sofia. Mir Guli claims that her husband, without informing her, registered Sofia's record with NADRA in Pakistan, effectively revoking her Chinese nationality, but did not register Mir Guli as his wife. Distressed by her husband's behaviour, she filed for khula in a Pakistani family court. Her counsel, Supreme Court Advocate Saeed Yousaf Khan, said the case took a major turn when Shah Zeb's legal team argued before the family court that since the marriage took place in China and was registered there, Pakistani courts lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter. However, Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court ruled that the case could indeed be heard and decided in Pakistan where the wife is residing. The judge directed the lower court to hear the matter on a daily basis, keeping in view the woman's visa status, and instructed the Ministry of Interior's visa section to review her case. Despite this, Family Court Judge Taimoor Afzal dismissed Mir Guli's khula plea on jurisdictional grounds on the same day the high court declared the case admissible. An appeal has now been filed before the Sessions Judge, along with a separate petition for custody of 12-year-old Sofia, who is currently living with her father.
